Hi.
This
is my first ever blog. It is primarily to make a discussion from
Huffington Post with suebeedue easier as HuffPo is not very conducive
to long discussions.
It
is about the Jehovah's Witness publication The Origin of Life.
I found this available for download online. Whilst looking for it it
became clear there are a number of critiques already available. But I
try to be fair so I'm reading the publication first and making my own
analysis as I go along. I'll add links to other sources later.
So,
what is it about?
“The
purpose of this brochure is to examine claims made by those who teach
that life appeared spontaneously and assert that the Bible's account
of creation is a myth.
You
will also be asked to analyze the assumptions that underpin the
theory of evolution.
This
brochure will present just some of the evidence that has led many to
believe that life was created”
In saying that evolution has assumptions,
whereas creation has evidence, the language is loaded in favour of creation. But I knew this would clearly be a
pro-creation piece. I'll be aware of this intended bias, but
still even-handed.
HOW DID LIFE BEGIN?
”some
scientists seem reluctant to discuss an even more fundamental
question -Where did life come from?”
The
use of language, 'some' 'seem',
is rather vague. I've never come across anyone reluctant to discuss
the question. Is this setting the tone for the piece? A claim that
scientists fear this question? Loaded language again but perhaps
there'll be evidence later.
What
do many scientists claim?
It talks about what some scientists
'feel' without references. It
says that some believe that life started when “chemicals
spontaneously assembled into bubblelike structures [and] formed
complex molecules”. I've
never heard that hypothesis. I don't think any scientist ever claimed
that complex structures spontaneously sprang into existence.
The sole reference is a quote from Alexandre Meinesz. The quote itself is interesting and is given to support the claim that life on earth could not occur by itself. I googled and found an interview with Meinesz:
The sole reference is a quote from Alexandre Meinesz. The quote itself is interesting and is given to support the claim that life on earth could not occur by itself. I googled and found an interview with Meinesz:
Did
you authorize the Watchtower to make reference to your book ? Of
course, not !
Do you support the creationist view of JW ? Absolutely not !
Is this quote correct? They’re making reference to my book on page 32 to 60 but this is not what I wrote. The sentence they are mentioning appears on page 47 but taken out of its context.
They’re promoting my book in their publications but if Jehovah's followers will read it, they will be very very disappointed !
Do you support the creationist view of JW ? Absolutely not !
Is this quote correct? They’re making reference to my book on page 32 to 60 but this is not what I wrote. The sentence they are mentioning appears on page 47 but taken out of its context.
They’re promoting my book in their publications but if Jehovah's followers will read it, they will be very very disappointed !
Not
a good start for the validity of this piece. So far one reference
made, and it is misused.
“All
scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from
previously preexisting life”
I
know this to be false because of various hypothoses about
abiogenesis. It is just plain false to say all
evidence indicates this. The pamphlet comes back to this when
discussing Miller.
“If
the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible
explanation of how the first "simple" cell formed by
chance”
This
misrepresents what evolution is. The pamphlet later argues that
evolution relies on creation as a foundation. This is not so.
Evolution is the ongoing development of the animal kingdom. It does
not say how life first started. The pamphlet tries to undermine the wealth of facts about evolution by saying it cannot stand
without an explanation for the very first form of life. But this is like arguing that I watched you walk towards me, but
because I didn't see you leave your house, I must believe that you
just appeared here in front of me.
The
pamphlet goes on to discuss the Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 as
evidence that early life could not start without God's intervention.
I'm disappointed to find that this section uses a double-bind
argument. Firstly it says that experiments are unsuccessful,
therefore God did it. But secondly it also claims that if the
experiments were successful it would only show that the role
of scientist, as played by God, is needed. Heads I win, tails you
lose
I've done some research into the Miller-Urey experiment. The pamphlet has misrepresented the facts. The experiment actually showed that there was the possibility that the early earth had everything needed to start life. Also, this experiment was in 1953. Incredible advances have been made in the 60 years since. For example...
I've done some research into the Miller-Urey experiment. The pamphlet has misrepresented the facts. The experiment actually showed that there was the possibility that the early earth had everything needed to start life. Also, this experiment was in 1953. Incredible advances have been made in the 60 years since. For example...
The
1953 Miller-Urey experiment, simulated early Earth's atmosphere with
nothing more than water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane and an
electrical charge standing in for lightning, and produced complex
organic compounds like amino acids. Now, scientists have learned more
about the environmental and atmospheric conditions on early Earth and
no longer think that the conditions used by Miller and Urey were
quite right. However, since Miller and Urey, many scientists have
performed experiments using more accurate environmental conditions
and exploring alternate scenarios for these reactions. These
experiments yielded similar results - complex molecules could have
formed in the conditions on early Earth
The
pamphlet then quotes from other scientists, but does a strange thing.
It quotes Shapiro and Cleland but then, as a footnote, explains that
they do not believe in creationism. Now, if the scientists were being
quoted in context surely they wouldn't also refute creation. This
clearly suggests that they are quoted out of context, so I again did
some further research.
The
footnote for Shapiro makes reference to a discovery by Manchester
University in 2009 and says Shapiro did not support it. The report in
Nature
quotes both sides. It explains that Manchester used methods
“consistent
with early-Earth scenarios”.
It goes on to say that Shapiro believes “simpler
metabolic processes, which eventually catalysed the formation of RNA
and DNA, were the first stirrings of life on Earth”.
So Shapiro definitely does not support the creationist view.
The
Cleland quote is also out of context. She went on to say, in the same
2002 interview that: “I
suppose that if I had to pick a favorite theory, it would be Freeman
Dyson's double origin theory,
which postulates an initial protein world that eventually produced an
RNA world as a by-product of an increasingly sophisticated
metabolism.
The
pamphlet says that protein needs RNA but that as protein is involved
in RNA this is an inescapable Catch-22. I note the careful use of the
word 'involved'. My first thoughts are that spanners are
involved in the making of machines yet machines make spanners. Some
research and I find about pre-RNA (which doesn't need protein) and
the RNA-world hypothesis
This chapter explains how complicated cells can be. It likens it to a factory with security guards, machines and so on. It asks the reader to ask whether such a structure could happen by a series of fortunate unguided accidents. This appeal to incredulity is a very poor argument for saying it needs God.
From
Berkeley site:
“Living
things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex.
However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the
primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series
of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved
previously:1. Simple organic molecules were formed.
Simple organic molecules such as necleotides are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules — the genetic material for all life — are just long chains of simple nucleotides.
2.
Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural
selection
This
ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator
— an RNA molecule that could copy itself
Many
biologists hypothesize that this step led to an "RNA world"
in which RNA did many jobs, storing genetic information, copying
itself, and performing basic metabolic functions. Today, these jobs
are performed by many different sorts of molecules (DNA, RNA, and
proteins,
mostly), but in the RNA world, RNA
did it all.”
However a bit of research reveals that the full quote continues: “Most scientists now believe that life originated in a number of smaller and probabilistically likelier steps. Instead of being one big chance like event, life might actually be an accretion of a series of events emerging at different moments in time.” That is a very different interpretation than that claimed by the pamphlet.
The
pamphlet asks: If some scientists are
willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source,
what is the basis for ruling out God as that Source?
Well, the answer is very simple. Evidence. There is evidence that theoretically some form of life could
have survived on a meteorite that crashed into earth.
a
theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will
crumble. Wrong, evolution and the origin of
first life are different. Even without firm proof of the beginning of
life, we can prove evolution beyond doubt through the examination of
fossil records, DNA and embryology. But the
pamphlet will try to discredit these, so let's press on.
WHERE DID THE INSTRUCTIONS COME FROM?
This
chapter describes the “extraordinary feat
of engineering” that is DNA and again appeals to
incredulity asking if we would accept that a well-organised library
could occur by chance. The comparison is misleading. It goes on to say
that the amount of information held in such a small amount of
material is so far beyond man's ability that it must be God.
It
makes the claim that scientists cannot replicate DNA. Wrong,
they can now - Researchers
have succeeded in mimicking the chemistry of life in synthetic
versions of DNA and RNA molecules.
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17769529
"What
I cannot
create, I do
not understand." Again a quote
out of context. This was a message for Feynman's students reminding
them that they
understand something better when they can explain it to someone else.
The
pamphlet quotes “Francis
Crick. a scientist who helped to discover DNA's double-helix
structure, decided that this molecule is far too organized to have
come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent
extraterrestrials may have sent DNA”
However,
in
a retrospective article,"Crick
noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of
abiogenesis on
Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating
protein system was the molecular origin of life.”
Furthermore,
“Crick joined a group of other Nobel
laureates who
advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the
public-school science classroom."
Crick
was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin
Day as
a British national holiday”
Anthony
Flew is also quoted. But yet again, a quick bit if research shows
that he said:
"I'm
quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god." When
asked whether or not he has kept up with the most recent science and
theology, he responded with "Certainly not," stating that
there is simply too much to keep up with. Flew also denied that there
was any truth to the rumours of 2001 and 2003 that he had converted
to Christianity”
HAS ALL LIFE DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR?
This
chapter claims that “recent research continues to
contradict Darwin's theory of common descent" quoting Baptiste. But the article referred to went on to say that
“Both
he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the
tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that
evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe”
Dr
Doolittle, of California University, said: "We
understand evolution pretty well it's just it is more complex than
Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern.” So
not a contradiction of evolution at all.
It
refers to a quote from David Raup but Raup went on to say “we
still have a record which does show change”.
What he is saying is that 'natural selection' may not give the
complete picture. Raup concludes “Darwin
was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of
the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple
element of chance!”
Again, quoted out of context. Do the authors really think people are
too stupid to check the sources?
“Genetic
research shows that life did not
originate from a single common ancestor.”
This is not only a misinterpretation of the 'evidence' given in the
pamphlet, it completely contradicts the truth of the research.
“All life today must descend from one single entity, the Last Universal Common Ancestor or Luca. The evidence for this is that all organisms share not only the same genetic code but the same detailed biochemistry” from Creation: The Origin of Life / The Future of Life, by Adam Rutherford.
I'll continue with the pamphlet in another post. But it is clear that that authors have wilfully misused the words of scientists, by taking their words out of context or presenting only partial quotes, in order to present a misleading opinion. It is one of the most blatant pieces of misinformation I have come across.
“All life today must descend from one single entity, the Last Universal Common Ancestor or Luca. The evidence for this is that all organisms share not only the same genetic code but the same detailed biochemistry” from Creation: The Origin of Life / The Future of Life, by Adam Rutherford.
I'll continue with the pamphlet in another post. But it is clear that that authors have wilfully misused the words of scientists, by taking their words out of context or presenting only partial quotes, in order to present a misleading opinion. It is one of the most blatant pieces of misinformation I have come across.